entropy
Member
Or more importantly, other things. Gasoline, Vehicles, etc.
Refute common anti gun talking points
- Thread starter Kaybee
- Start date
- Status
Or more importantly, other things. Gasoline, Vehicles, etc.
Just saw this. I have seen this group for over a year or two, not endorsing them per se but they seem to be legit:
I went to the site and they have a form asking for your info:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline
I went to the site and they have a form asking for your info:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline
Safety First
Member
All firearms can be a weapon of war if needed. Some are just more suited for the purpose than others.
....... shall NOT be INFRINGED.
....... shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Pudge
Member
I did not hear what you posted. And could not find the report I listened to, the report I heard started by pointing out the surge in buying and acknowledged some people made their own. What I heard was the interviewee (I believe Gov. Newsom) saying that the result of the law would be to restrict the availability of ammunition. And was satisfied with that result, not that it would have any impact on safety or crime.
I also believe this is the wave of the future, because people have come to believe that government control is preferable to freedom. California gun owners have been inconvenienced by this law. They will have to pay $1 each purchase and will need to wait for the bckground checks to be processed. Non-gun owners, on the other hand, have been stripped of the right to buy ammunition. They've surrendured their rights, and the lawmakers know that the law cannot control those who make their own ammo (easier than making a ghost gun), nor does it prevent sharing ammo. These are the people, the ones who surrendured their right just to make their neighbor pay $1 more for an ammo purchase, without beliving, or even being told, that the law will make any kind of measurable impact in crime or safety, they don't care enough to be swayed by an argument, even when they know they are wrong.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
For those that think we can actually have a logical conversation with anti 2a folks, you all really need to search YouTube and check out the hundreds of videos of anti 2a people gatherings and how they act and think.
You think you've "met a few antis" and you know how "they" think and that maybe they can be reasoned with? You know nothing.
You'll get more accomplished taking a dump, and that's being High Road.
You think you've "met a few antis" and you know how "they" think and that maybe they can be reasoned with? You know nothing.
You'll get more accomplished taking a dump, and that's being High Road.
Scooter22
Member
It's not going to work with many millennial's. I'll try and make my point simple. If it seems racial than please delete my post. In a nut shell what I hear. White people make, buy and own guns. They are used in shootings and in crime. It's not the fault of the minority community using them because whites make their lives terrible because of the old "S" word. It doesn't matter that I or no one I've ever known that owns guns has used them criminally. Or many if not most of the criminals are minority and repeat offenders against their ow people. NO, it's the makers and legal owners who have guns that cause the blood shed. But Chicago and the other inner cities are Do'in Fine.
Deanimator
Member
Like Klansman and Holocaust deniers, they are totally invested in a lie, without which their entire worldview collapses.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
I have been to war. Have shot and killed people in combat. The AR-15 on sale at your local Wal-Mart or local gun store is not the same as the weapons I carried in sandboxes thousands of miles away. The talking heads (and those that listen) will not accept this fact. Therefore it is useless to argue semantic law about the differences. Saying the AR-15 is like a weapon of war is like saying the Ford Focus is like a race car, similar technology in the wrong ball field.
Tommygunn
Member
Some civilian ARs are very close to what's called "mil spec" in everything but the trigger group. There are high end civilian versions that are actually better than the military versions.
Some of the differences between mil spec and civilian AR-15s really make little difference. Twist rate of rifling only makes a difference in how the gun shoots various length bullets. Civilian versions can have different coatings than chrome barrels, like nitrided.
Most people that have been into AR rifles over time know the "mil spec" issue, and what it means. I doubt that most non gun people who perceive the store bought Bushmaster, D. P. M. S., or Springfield Saint will know or care about how mil spec they are, or what differences there are between the mil spec M-4 issued to soldiers and those store bought clones because they don't get the difference between full auto and semi auto. Many in the antigun leadership actively work to obfuscate the semi/full auto differences.
AlexanderA
Member
I fail to see the point of any of this discussion, actually. The country is divided into two opposing camps and guns are only one of many points of contention or points of identification of the two camps. There are people that normally would be favorable to guns, but now feel they must oppose guns because their "tribe" does. The gun issue cannot be seen in isolation.
JR24
Member
You keep twisting a simple logical statement into something I was not arguing (and don't necessarily disagree with) and conflating with an issue I was not referencing.
There does not seem to be a reason to continue this discourse.
badkarmamib
Member
How would that not be an "infringement"?
FlSwampRat
Member
I've done that,makes my head hurt. Can only tolerate a low number of them before I need to watch something else. Cute kitten videos, anyone?
AlexanderA
Member
Because any gun that does not have a military or self-defense purpose is beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Admittedly, it would be hard to find a gun that could not conceivably have a military or self-defense purpose. But we are talking the theory here.
AlexanderA
Member
So what? They're close enough. I own both semi AR-15's and full auto M16's. They're indistinguishable except for the third position on the selector. I would not feel particularly handicapped going into battle with an AR-15.
Someone doing mag dumps with his M16 will just use up his ammunition faster. If you are left without ammunition you are effectively disarmed.
badkarmamib
Member
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I do not see anything about military or self-defense in there. Also, give me an example of firearms that have not played a part in warfare or self-defense at one point or another.
Alexander has a very particular view of what the 2nd amendment means. It's not an unreasonable interpretation, but it is both different from the most current favorable caselaw, and is not a view shared by most people who are not pretty ardent pro-gun folks already.
So arguing from Alexander's interpretation as a starting premise... well, it's internally consistent, but otherwise isn't likely to persuade a lot of folks.
Rhetorically, you have to decide whether it will be easier to convince folks that the 2nd amendment means every individual is entitled to possess all the same gear as a Marine heading into Fallujah might individually carry (Alexander's view, as I understand it), or to convince them that there is a difference in the risk presented to the public in allowing people to have semi-automatic rifles versus belt-fed machine guns and grenades.
I know which one I think is an easier sell.
So arguing from Alexander's interpretation as a starting premise... well, it's internally consistent, but otherwise isn't likely to persuade a lot of folks.
Rhetorically, you have to decide whether it will be easier to convince folks that the 2nd amendment means every individual is entitled to possess all the same gear as a Marine heading into Fallujah might individually carry (Alexander's view, as I understand it), or to convince them that there is a difference in the risk presented to the public in allowing people to have semi-automatic rifles versus belt-fed machine guns and grenades.
I know which one I think is an easier sell.
Tommygunn
Member
No gun has to have a military or self defense purpose. " ....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Infringed" means "to intrude into/onto," or "to diminish." All guns may not have the same purpose, use, or military use, but a law banning a particular style or class of gun IS an intrusion into a protected right, and diminishes said right.
In fact, since the 2A states "arms," not "firearms" it also applies to other weapons capable of being owned and carried by people.
entropy
Member
Indeed; it sounds like "Tactical Fuddism".
AlexanderA
Member
I would include crew-served weapons as well. Even artillery.
entropy
Member
Except that's not the truth. The early rifles of the type bought by the Air Force for airbase sentries were in fact off-the-shelf AR-15's; at that time the Model AR-15 was a selective fire rifle. 1000 were tested in VN by Army Special Forces, who glowingly reviewed the rifle, and in Jan. of 1963, with M-14 production projected to not meet future demand, the M16 was adopted. All the airbase sentry rifles and the 1000 sent to VN by DARPA were in fact, select-fire AR-15's.
Last edited:
denton
Member
The oldest political scam is finding some real or imagined threat and getting the people to elect you to protect them from it. At various times it has been switchblade knives, creeping communism, and firearms.
The anti-gunners present only one side of the ledger, fear that your neighbor will go berserk and spray your church, school, or workplace with bullets.
They neglect to mention that we have 17,250 homicides per year and 2,200,000 to 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year. That means that use of a gun to prevent a crime is 140 times as common as homicide.
Fact is, we're a lot safer with firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. Do all you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and I'm fine with it. But do not muck about with the ability to prevent crime by lawful use of firearms.
The anti-gunners present only one side of the ledger, fear that your neighbor will go berserk and spray your church, school, or workplace with bullets.
They neglect to mention that we have 17,250 homicides per year and 2,200,000 to 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year. That means that use of a gun to prevent a crime is 140 times as common as homicide.
Fact is, we're a lot safer with firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. Do all you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and I'm fine with it. But do not muck about with the ability to prevent crime by lawful use of firearms.
And, "weapons of war" is exactly what is protected by the 2nd Amendment! Just sayin'.
Regards,
hps
AlexanderA
Member
That's a fair point. I can't think offhand of a firearm that would not have a military or self-defense application. Even Miller's sawed-off shotgun could have been shown to have had a military application (Miller v. U.S., 1939). But theoretically, if a gun could be found that had no military or self-defense application, I don't believe it would be covered by the 2nd Amendment.
The words "arms" and "bear" are terms of art, or at least they were in 1791, when the Amendment was adopted. "Arms" were the ordinary weapons of the soldier, including his musket, bayonet, and ammunition. "Bear" didn't mean to carry them around haphazardly. It meant to carry them under some sort of military drill and discipline. Of course these terms have been broadened with the passing centuries, but you get the idea.
OK, the Militia Clause was negated by Justice Scalia as mere "prefatory language," in the Heller case. I believe that that was a mistake. His interpretation narrowed the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and weakened the right to bear arms. (It's going to be used to uphold AWB's in the future.) The correct view, in my opinion, is to give the Militia Clause due weight, with the understanding that all members of the public are part of the constitutional militia. The upshot of that view is that everybody is entitled to his own machine gun.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
